Importance of decision quality in breast cancer care

Background: In breast cancer, treatment decisions are challenging as patients, their families and providers need to sort through an ever expanding array of options for surgery, radiation, reconstruction and systemic therapy. Objective: To describe efficacy and effectiveness of interventions designed to improve decision quality in breast cancer care. Methods: We describe the competencies required of providers and patients to engage in shared decision making, and then present interventions and metrics that have been shown to improve the quality of medical treatment decisions. A case study illustrates how decision support tools have been implemented in a cancer center in the United States. Results: Patients and providers face multiple decisions after a breast cancer diagnosis and too often these decisions are made without patients having adequate information or involvement. Decision aids, prompt sheets and consultation recordings have been shown to improve the quality of decisions by increasing knowledge, reducing decision conflict and improving communication. These tools have been successfully integrated in a variety of cancer centers, but require some resources and infrastructure to make it work. Conclusions: Patients, their families and providers need to work together to select cancer treatments. These interactions are complex and can be improved through the implementation of decision support

Decision Quality Instrument for Treatment of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Psychometric Evaluation

A high quality decision requires that patients who meet clinical criteria for surgery are informed about the options (including non-surgical alternatives) and receive treatments that match their goals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties and clinical sensibility of a patient self report instrument, to measure the quality of decisions about total joint replacement for knee or hip osteoarthritis

Training community resource center and clinic personnel to prompt patients in listing questions for doctors: Follow-up interviews about barriers and facilitators to the implementation of consultation planning

BackgroundVisit preparation interventions help patients prepare to meet with a medical provider. Systematic reviews have found some positive effects, but there are no reports describing implementation experiences. Consultation Planning (CP) is a visit preparation technique in which a trained coach or facilitator elicits and documents patient questions for an upcoming medical appointment. We integrated CP into a university breast cancer clinic beginning in 1998. Representatives of other organizations expressed interest in CP, so we invited them to training workshops in 2000, 2001, and 2002.ObjectivesIn order to learn from experience and generate hypotheses, we asked: 1) How many trainees implemented CP? 2) What facilitated implementation? 3) How have trainees, patients, physicians, and administrative leaders of implementing organizations reacted to CP? 4) What were the barriers to implementation?MethodsWe attempted to contact 32 trainees and scheduled follow-up, semi-structured, audio-recorded telephone interviews with 18. We analyzed quantitative data by tabulating frequencies and qualitative data by coding transcripts and identifying themes.ResultsTrainees came from two different types of organizations, clinics (which provide medical care) versus resource centers (which provide patient support services but not medical care). We found that: 1) Fourteen of 21 respondents, from five of eight resource centers, implemented CP. Four of the five implementing resource centers were rural. 2) Implementers identified the championing of CP by an internal staff member as a critical success factor. 3) Implementers reported that modified CP has been productive. 4) Four respondents, from two resource centers and two clinics, did not implement CP, reporting resource limitations or conflicting priorities as the critical barriers.ConclusionCP training workshops have been associated with subsequent CP implementations at resource centers but not clinics. We hypothesize that CP workshops combined with an internal champion and adequate program resources may be sufficient for some patient support organizations to implement CP

Development and evaluation of a new survey instrument to measure the quality of colorectal cancer screening decisions

Background: Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening recommend that patients be informed about options and be able to select preferred method of screening; however, there are no existing measures available to assess whether this happens. Methods: Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Quality Instrument (CRC-DQI) includes knowledge items and patients' goals and concerns. Items were generated through literature review and qualitative work with patients and providers. Hypotheses relating to the acceptability, feasibility, discriminant validity and retest reliability of the survey were examined using data from three studies: (1) 2X2 randomized study of participants recruited online, (2) cross-sectional sample of patients recruited in community health clinics, and (3) cross-sectional sample of providers recruited from American Medical Association Master file. Results: 338 participants were recruited online, 94 participants were recruited from community health centers, and 115 physicians were recruited. The CRC-DQI was feasible and acceptable with low missing data and high response rates for both online and paper-based administrations. The knowledge score was able to discriminate between those who had seen a decision aid or not (84% vs. 64%, p < 0.001) and between providers, online patients and clinic patients (89% vs. 74% vs. 41%, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The knowledge score and most of the goals had adequate retest reliability. About half of the participants received a test that matched their goals (47% and 51% in online and clinic samples respectively). Many respondents who had never been screened had goals that indicated a preference for colonoscopy. A minority of respondents in the online (21%) and in clinic (2%) samples were both well informed and received a test that matched their goals. Conclusions: The CRC-DQI demonstrated good psychometric properties in diverse samples, and across different modes of administration. Few respondents made high quality decisions about colon cancer screening

Psychometric properties of the Impact Index in patients with chronic conditions

The purpose of this paper was to extend the generalizability of the patient-reported Impact Index by assessing convergent validity in patients with common chronic conditions. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,000 English-speaking patients aged 21 and older who visited their provider in the past 6 months and were included in one or more of a hospital’s chronic condition registries. Patients completed a survey that included the Impact Index (4-item measure of how impacted a patient is by their health condition: range 0-12, higher score indicating greater negative impact on quality of life), overall health, and self-report of diagnosis of 8 chronic conditions. Patients were categorized as having symptomatic conditions (one or more symptomatic conditions) or asymptomatic conditions. We hypothesized that Impact Index scores would be negatively correlated with overall health, positively correlated with the number of chronic conditions (using Pearson correlations) and would be higher for symptomatic than asymptomatic conditions (using an independent t-test). Of the 492 respondents (50% response rate), 381/392 eligible respondents completed all Impact Index items. Impact Index scores ranged from 0 to 12 (M=6, SD=4). As reports of overall health increased (i.e., from poor to excellent), Impact Index scores decreased (r=-0.59, p\u3c.001). As the number of chronic conditions increased, so did Impact Index scores (r=0.33, p\u3c.001). Patients with symptomatic conditions reported higher Impact Index scores (M=6.6, SD=3.5) than those with asymptomatic conditions (M=4.1, SD=3.5, p\u3c.001, d=.70). These findings support the validity of the Impact Index for patients with a range of chronic conditions. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Policy & Measurement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://theberylinstitute.org/experience-framework/). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

Is there shared decision making when the provider makes a recommendation?

To compare the amount of shared decision making in breast cancer surgery interactions when providers do and do not make a treatment recommendation

How Informed Is the Decision About Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy?: A Prospective, Cross-sectional Study

to assess how informed patients are about breast reconstruction, and how involved they are in decision making

Are Patients Making High-Quality Decisions about Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy? [Outcomes Article]

Variation in rates of breast reconstruction after mastectomy has raised concerns about the quality of decisions about reconstruction. We sought to evaluate patient decision making about reconstruction, using a validated measure of knowledge and preferences related to reconstruction